Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Santa Clara planning commissioners affirm denial of smoke shop zoning clearance at 770 Kiley Boulevard
Summary
The Planning Commission upheld the Community Development Director's denial of a zoning clearance for a proposed smoke shop at 770 Kiley Boulevard, citing a 2024–2025 zoning update that removed the use from the MUNC district; the appeal was denied after commissioners questioned process and noted potential pathways if the applicant re-files as a convenience store.
Santa Clara — The Planning Commission on Wednesday affirmed the Community Development Director’s decision to deny a zoning clearance for a proposed smoke shop at 770 Kiley Boulevard, rejecting an appeal from the applicant who said she had been told earlier she did not need special land-use approval.
Staff presented the item, saying city zoning changes in 2024 and a subsequent cleanup in 2025 clarified that smoke shops are not permitted in the Mixed-Use Neighborhood Commercial (MUNC) zoning district. "The zoning clearance was required in 2024 prior to the issuance of a business tax certificate," Tracy Tam, associate planner, told commissioners, and staff recommended affirming the director’s denial and that the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) did not apply to a disapproved project.
The appellant, through an interpreter, said she submitted a business tax application in April 2025 and visited planning staff three times; she told the commission she did not receive a written denial until she requested it in December 2025. "I did not receive any denial letter in July 2025," the appellant said, adding later that she received a letter dated 12/15/2025.
Commissioners focused their questioning on when the rules changed and what staff told the applicant. Commissioner Biagini summarized the factual thread raised in the hearing: that the MUNC zone did not allow a smoke shop and that the recent code changes and cleanups made the prohibition explicit. Commissioners and counsel emphasized the commission’s role in a de novo appeal of the director’s zoning decision rather than as a code-enforcement forum for alleged unpermitted operations.
A nearby business owner testified during public comment that the smoke shop had been operating for six to eight months and asked why the city had not earlier noticed it. Commissioners and staff repeatedly distinguished enforcement of operating without required permits from the appeal over whether the zoning clearance should have been issued.
After deliberation, Commissioner Biagini moved to overrule the appeal and affirm the director's denial of the zoning clearance; the motion was seconded and the commission voted to affirm the denial. The commission’s action leaves the applicant the option of filing for a different land use, such as a convenience store with ancillary tobacco sales, which staff said would require a new zoning clearance.
The appellant said she understood the decision but expressed disappointment. The commission encouraged the applicant to work with staff on alternative approaches and to seek clarification in person if email responses are delayed.
The commission did not provide a vote tally in the hearing transcript. The director’s denial and the commission’s affirmation are reflected in the resolution adopted at the meeting.
What happens next: The applicant may apply for a new zoning clearance if she revises the proposed use (staff said a convenience store with ancillary tobacco sales could be permitted at that location subject to a new zoning clearance).
